Talk:First 1,000 days

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ElizabethHu3, Sh.ucsf, Kianahct, ChristianHailozian1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2023 Group A proposed edits

Update definition to more accurately reflect that provided by UNICEF

Add sections discussing effective proposed interventions to improve child health, as well as consequences of these interventions not taking place

Include info on childhood obesity, epigenetic programming, microbiota

Update controversy section given age of cited text Kiana Hocutt (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed edits: Sh.ucsf (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Sh.ucsf (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

Post Peer Reviews here Jred.fong678 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding Framework"?

Really interesting topic with great scientific details to support. Due to the scientific nature of the content it would be nice to add more background that is not scientific- for example when this term first came into literature and who coined the phrase. I would also be interested to know if there are any open studies and in what parts of the world this is most impactful, maybe a global impact section? Overall good start to the topic - I'd also be interested to see more detail around controversy (maybe a better word for the header of criticism?)FuturepharmD2025 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The edits to this page are informative since hearing "first 1000 days" does not sound like medical terminology. The article does a good job in explaining how this time period is a critical period in newborns for anatomical and metabolic development. It first transitions from the Lead section by giving a broad definition of the "first 1000 days" into specific content like importance of microbiota and epigenetics. Even though it was optional, it would have been nice to see some images or like the common microbiota during the initial time period, etc. Jred.fong678 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Dini2025 (talk)dini2025: The wikipedia peer review does improve the article, I especially thought the epigenetic section provided more information to how it relates to 1000 days of development. Additionally, the expansion of the nutrition section provides more substance for how important it may be especially for females assigned at birth. — Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the group achieved it's overall goals for improvement?

I think that the group achieved majority of their goals. The article mentions how proper nutrition is crucial for the microbiota in proper development of the immunological and anatomical pathways. The group also detailed the importance of various factors that play in epigenetics like nutrition and stress exposure. I think that I would have liked to see a little more elaboration on childhood obesity. Jred.fong678 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Jred.fong678 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Dini2025 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)dini2025: Yes, the overall goals for improvement has been met. The article does a good job of expanding on microbiota which is a very popular topic in regards to development and immunity which are important topics for developmental stages 1000 days.

One of the first goals of the group was to update per UNICEF reference, which includes topics like iron deficiency, iron supplementation and "nutrient-brain interactions". This information is not included in the article so it is still out of sync with that goal. Additionally "criticism" section which is referred to as controversy in the goals is only one sentence so it looks like that still needs to be built out. Otherwise, included sections on microbiota and epigenetics are aligned with goal list. FuturepharmD2025 (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain)

Dini2025 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)dini2025: I believe the article is quite neutral, I will pull a specific quote that supports this: "This is considered a "critical period" in which sufficient nutrition and environmental factors have life-long effects on a child's overall health. While adequate nutrition can be exceptionally beneficial during this critical period, inadequate nutrition may also be detrimental to the child" which sets the stage of neutrality for the rest of the article. The article does not sway one point of thought, it leaves it general and allows us to look further via hyperlinks and appropriate citations.

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain)

The main points include information on Microbiota and Epigenetics, both of which are verified in the sources. There are some points which have several sources, for example in the lead section "adequate nutrition at this time..." has 4 cited sources. It may be worth evaluating either the need to add more specific information found in those sources or consolidating/removing some of them. (FuturepharmD2025 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual style? (explain)

The edits made to the Wikipedia article have improved the topic and are consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. The article and authors mainly adhere to the section organization structure that is outlined by the Manual of Style. There is an introductory lead section that starts the article off, although it is quite divided up into sections/separate sentences. The article's overall content is both relevant to the topic and up-to-date with current views. VeronicaCraik (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC) VeronicaCraik

Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)

Yes, the edits reflected diversity and inclusion as it showed that in the lead section, after mentioning overall treatment for children during the first 1000 days, it also mentioned growth pathways for adolescent girls. I also liked how in the microbiota section, the article mentions differences in those in underserved communities which acknowledges the fact that these communities commonly face food insecurities and higher risk of malnutrition which can impact the first 1000 days. Jred.fong678 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference Verification

• kianahct reviewed references #1, #12-19. Added PMID numbers to citations in which they were missing. While Nutrients (published by MDPI), and Frontiers in Immunology/Microbiology (published by Frontiers) seem to have had some concerns regarding predatory publishing practices, none of these journals are found on the Beall's list. Additionally, all 3 received the DOAJ seal and were maintained in this article on this criteria. Kiana Hocutt (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• sh.ucsf reviewed #1-6 and #15. References #2 and #15 were duplicates; consolidaated all callouts in the text, which now refer to reference #2Sh.ucsf (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC) <small class="autosigned"

• ElizabethHu3 reviewed references #2, #27-30 ElizabethHu3 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• ChristianHailozian1 reviewed references #1-4 and #20-25. ChristianHailozian1 (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)